Jason Ivler y Aguilar vs. Hon.

Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Judge of the

Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and Evageline Ponce
G.R. 172716

(DOUBLE JEOPARDY)

FACTS:

There is a vehicular collision in August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with two separate offenses: reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by Evangeline L. Ponce; and
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of
respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.

Crimes charged: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and 2) reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property

On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction,
Ivler moved to quash the Information of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage
to property for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ivler’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further
proceedings in the information charging him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
damage to property?

RULING:
 Yes, Ivler argues that his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense bars his prosecution in reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property having been previously convicted in reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries for the same offense. Ivler submits that the multiple
consequences of such crime are material only to determine his penalty.

Quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible,” unlike willful offenses which
punish the intentional criminal act. These structural and conceptual features of quasi-offenses set
them apart from the mass of intentional crimes.

Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent
act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.

The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious
result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one
and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno
G.R 127818

FACTS:

Grace Nepomuceno is the wife of Guillermo Nepomuceno. On May 22, 1994 at around 11 o’clock
According to their Housemaid, Eden Ontog, the accused was drunk and she awakened by the loud
voices of the spouses who were arguing, she also saw that the accused get a gun from the drawer after a
few moment, she heard Grace said, “Patayin mo na ako, Patayin mo na kami ng anak ko” then Eden
heard a gunshot, The accused told eden to get a taxi so he could bring Grace to hospital.

According to the sister of the victim, Monserrat De Leon, that Guillermo is Jobless and her sister had
problems with the low income of her owned store at the Zurbaran Mart, she claimed also that Guillermo is
forcing Grace to have sex while he was drunk.

According to the accused himself, He get the gun from the drawer because he want to end his life
because for him to think that he is useless for this family, suddenly Grace have a possession of
the gun, Their son, Jordan awakened and Nepomuceno block his son's way with his right knee.
In the process, he wanted to totally force Grace from taking possession and control of the gun.
He raised his arm holding the gun passing over the left leg of Grace.

The last words of his wife is “Masakit, Papa” after the incident, the accused voluntary
surrendered to the police authority.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the accused intentionally killed Grace, his legally wedded wife?

RULING:
The Accused want to waived the Article 12 Paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, accused-
appellant contends that he did not have the least intention of killing his wife. He urges the Court
to consider the circumstances attendant to the killing, which, according to him, negate all
inferences and deductions, that he would kill his wife. First, the deceased was hit in the upper
leg, not in any vital organ. If he had the intention of killing the deceased, he would have shot her
at the most vital part of her body.

the reaction of the deceased after she was hit was contrary to ordinary and usual human
behavior, if her husband really intended to kill her. The deceased just uttered, "Masakit Papa",
she did not curse nor mouth evil and harsh language against accused-appellant to show hatred
and anger.

If accused-appellant really intended to kill his wife, why did he call a taxi and bring her to the
hospital for immediate medical attention?

Why should accused-appellant voluntarily surrender to the police, if the incident was not
accidental?

After a painstaking review of the evidence and record of this case, the Court finds itself unable to
reach conclusions identical to those put forward by accused-appellant.

The trial court correctly appreciated the voluntary surrender of accused-appellant as a mitigating
circumstance, this fact having been stipulated by the parties at the pre-trial stage of this case

The penalty for the crime of parricide is reclusion perpetua to death; however, there being one
mitigating circumstance but no aggravating circumstance, the lower of the two indivisible
penalties should be imposed. The penalty cannot be further reduced by one degree as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not find application, the penalties involved being indivisible.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision convicting accused-appellant GUILLERMO

NEPOMUCENO, JR. of the crime of Parricide is hereby AFFIRMED with the slight modification
that his sentence shall be simply reclusion perpetua, not "imprisonment of Forty (40) Years
of reclusion perpetua" as stated by the trial court.